Wednesday, 18 February 2015

The Politics of Secession

Some of todays hot political issues concern the current conflict in Ukraine, the recent vote on whether or not Scotland should leave the United Kingdom, the British referendum over membership in the EU looming on the horizon. Aside from these, the status of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar as British overseas territories is causing political tension between Britain on the one hand, and Argentina & Spain on the other. Now, let's start with Ukraine. So, the short story is, Crimea wanted to be a part of Russia, and this has inspired several other eastern Ukrainian cities to decide to cut ties with Ukraine also.

Now, 'the West' claims that Crimea was forcibly annexed, and that the 'pro-Russian' separatist movements were engineered by Russia. Of course, the pro-Russian ex-president of Ukraine was forcibly overthrown by mobs of pro-EU protesters, who were set up and agitated by undercover Western agents, and was replaced by a pro-EU, pro-Western puppet government (some of whom were neo-Nazis.) Ironically enough, the secession attempts being led by these Ukrainian cities are being declared as "illegal." Of course, what one has to remember is: the American Revolutionary War was "illegal" too. What matters is what the people want: the principle of self-determination. As such, this is nothing more than the Western political elite trying to force their brand of authoritarianism down people's throats as if it were holy writ.

With regards to Scotland: on one hand we have the Scottish Nationalist Party (their name should be a red flag to anybody with more than half a brain) demanding a referendum on Scottish membership of the UK. On the other hand, we have the British government trying to do all in their power to preserve the 'union.' Now, if the Scottish people wanted to leave the UK, that would be fine, but this is simply Alex Salmond and co. flapping their mouths about things the Scottish people don't care about. The answer to the vote was a resounding: NO. Salmond and the SNP are now demanding another vote.

Of course, not that I side with the British government. I don't really see the need for the UK. Why can't England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland each rule themselves and simply remain in a close relationship with each other? All the scaremongering by the British government is just as bad as the SNP phony sabre rattling. This brings me on to British membership of the EU, why do we need to be part of a centralised European authoritarian state in order to be close friends and trading partners with the rest of Europe. If they won't trade with people not in their special club, then that is their loss, and not ours, as we have trading partners, friends, and allies outside of the EU.

Of course, the EU is a centralised economic pseudo-state that also seeks to impose various authoritarian dictates in regards to social policy. The EU and its costly and needless bureaucracy, regulations, etc. add on to the pre-existing regulations and so on, compounding our problems. The goal of the EU is a centralised, all-encompassing European super-state, disturbingly reminiscent of fascism and communism, regardless of whether or not people want it (and it is abundantly clear that the British public want out of the EU.) Whilst a British exit is mocked, a future possibility that the smug parasites in Brussels might not be so glib about is the possibility of a German exit from the EU and a return to the hard Deutschemark.

You see, the Eurocrats need to mock secession, since if but one nation leaves their failed experiment, it opens the floodgates, and they want to preserve their precious 'union' purely because they want to rule over other people's lives. The Argentine government in its lust for land that was never theirs are similar. You see, they want to rule over the Falkland Islands, probably for its natural resources, purely because it is nearer to them than it is to Britain. However, the island had no native population and was first settled by the British. Now, every time the Falkland islanders are given a vote, they vote to remain British.

This reinforces the idea that the government does not serve its people, and is not voluntarily. When people want to opt out, they are violently oppressed. If they stay in the system, then they are violently oppressed. Essentially, the government seeks to forces itself on its citizens. That there are citizens brainwashed and deluded enough to keep supporting the government is besides the point. Governments round the world oppose attempts at secession because they cannot tolerate any opposition. Allowing people the freedom to opt out of their hegemony would give people 'ideas,' so to speak. Simply put, they are the enemies of freedom.

Every free human is an agent with free will, and so, as such, have the right to liberty, free choice, and all that good stuff. Yet, by refusing to allow free humans to choose whether or not they want to live as part of a government or not is no less a denial of freedom than slavery. The only difference is that the government seeks to control its citizens via pleasure and meaningless distractions rather than pain and hardship. Not that this fact deters the laughing, smiling apologists of such a system of institutionalised corruption and violence.

As long as we are willing to tolerate this, we can never know freedom, and freedom is the only path to economic prosperity. Right now, the political elite have a chokehold on its populace. We have centralised banking, government subsidies, government regulations, government interference and intervention in our economic and political lives. All of these things are keeping us poor and oppressed, whilst the parasitic class of political elites ruling over us laugh and grow fat.

Not that I actually oppose all government. A government that operated on voluntaristic principles would not be objectionable. The only question would be: would such a thing be better than simply living without a government and freely associating and interacting with those who wish to do the same. If such a government is possible, and would be better than statelessness, then I would be for it. This is why I prefer the term voluntarism rather than anarchism. I merely stand for freedom, the principle of non-aggression, and the principle of voluntary human interaction.

At the very least, the current authoritarian fascist/socialist governments around the world need to be repudiated, opposed, and overturned. With government controlled central bank, we have a government monopoly over currency. The current policy of fiat currency quantitative easing and artificially low interest rates have the effects of causing rapid artificial inflation, and fuelling mass malinvestment. Both of these things distort the market, and subvert the market processes. Inflation leads to rapidly rising prices and the devaluation of currency.

We also have burdensome systems of government bureaucracy and red tape in the form of high taxation, over regulation, and subsidisation. By subsidising certain businesses, the government is effectively picking winners and losers. Moreover, these companies will then lobby the government, who will pass regulations favourable to those companies, but not others. This again distorts the market and subverts market processes. The companies in question cannot survive without this neo-fascist style corporatism. We even have out and out socialism in certain places and cases.

Our governments also piss our tax money away on other stupid things, such as funding foreign wars in the form of "foreign aid" and military spending. All of these things are what have led to the downfall of literally every empire in recorded history. Military imperialism, deficit spending, high taxes, devaluation of currency, etc. A simple cursory glance of history confirms that these policies only ever lead to economic ruin, yet the political elite insist it is the only way to prosperity. In a way they are right, it is their prosperity that depends on such a system. Without out they'd just be ordinary schmoes like the rest of us.

Professional "economists" (i.e. people paid to guess wrong about the economy) will swear blind that this economic system works, yet they have not one single shred of corroborating evidence. You see, they only study numbers; a discipline known as econometrics, which treats national economics and all the transactions within as abstractions. What they fail to take into consideration is that no amount of model building and estimations built on numerical data could ever account for the actions of agents with free will such as ourselves. If these 'professionals' were only to read a history book, then they would know this to be true. Most are simply too ignorant, or too stupid. However, there are a few who probably do know, but choose to lie about it anyway.

In essence, this system and everybody who supports it are completely insane. From the political elite who profit from this, to the stupid moron on the street who thinks voting actually makes a difference in a system of total corruption and violence. I know some will take umbrage at what I have to say, but that is most likely because I refuse to disguise my disgust at the passive role the voting public plays in upholding the current status quo. And even though everybody with more than half a brain knows what I am saying is true, there are those who will fight to preserve the system.